Knowledge

Dusky v. United States

Source 📝

31: 423: 332:
s mental competence standard, for he will be able to work with counsel at trial, yet at the same time he may be unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel." However, the court did not actually provide a CTRO standard, opting instead to leave this
268:
Upon reviewing the evidence, the court decided to grant the writ of certiorari. The court ruled that to be competent to stand trial the defendant must have a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and a "rational as well as factual
134:
The competency standard for standing trial: whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against
429: 772: 1144: 310:(1993), the Supreme Court held that the competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving the right to counsel is the same as the competency standard for standing trial established in 524:
Felthous, Alan R.; Flynn, Lauren E. (January–February 2009). "From competence to waive counsel to competence to represent oneself: the Supreme Court advances fairness in Edwards".
1015: 1226: 1160: 260:
to the Supreme Court, the petitioner requested for his conviction to be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding.
716: 894: 1211: 812: 740: 1055: 934: 926: 788: 583: 504: 410: 358: 70: 820: 764: 1128: 1120: 804: 796: 1168: 1031: 958: 669: 1152: 1136: 325: 679: 1221: 1216: 1231: 336:
Felhous (2011) argues that many state statutes and the federal statute do not incorporate the rationality standard enunciated in
448: 662: 483: 252:
Milton Dusky, a 33-year-old man, was charged with assisting in the kidnapping and rape of an underage female. He clearly had
320:(2008), however, the Supreme Court made a distinction between competence to waive counsel (CTWC), which was the subject of 328:(CTRO). The majority opinion, authored by Breyer, noted, "In certain instances an individual may well be able to satisfy 237: 35: 655: 182: 273:
exam was insufficient. His case was remanded for retrial, at which time his sentence was reduced to 20 years.
353: 1236: 630: 121: 102: 966: 241: 594: 1108: 612: 1003: 902: 872: 380: 282: 194: 621: 886: 724: 244:
before proceeding to trial. The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
190: 647: 1079: 942: 910: 756: 587: 508: 414: 364: 62: 603: 256:
but was found competent to stand trial and received a sentence of 45 years. On petition of
780: 8: 558:
Felthous, A. R. (2011). Competence to stand trial should require rational understanding.
300:
The defendant must have the ability to aid his or her attorney in his or her own defense.
1184: 1087: 1071: 950: 748: 682: 533: 511: 417: 372: 316: 257: 170: 1176: 1047: 1039: 864: 541: 479: 452: 234: 166: 1063: 918: 849: 708: 696: 499: 306: 65: 269:
understanding of the proceedings against him." The court made clear that a brief
828: 202: 289:. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the 1205: 982: 732: 478:(1988 ed.). Sarasota FL: Professional Resource Exchange. pp. 1–23. 290: 286: 270: 253: 563: 974: 639: 545: 178: 150: 537: 344:
court decisions had not consistently affirmed the rationality standard.
158: 81: 77: 106: 523: 293:, the two elements outlined in the decision are held in common: 677: 240:
case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a
30: 560:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39
476:
Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations: A Manual for Practice
297:
The defendant must understand the charges against him or her
118: 99: 430:
public domain material from this U.S government document
1227:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
359:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 362
1203: 1212:United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions 663: 1107: 526:Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 217: 670: 656: 564:http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/1/19.full 443: 441: 439: 402: 400: 398: 281:This case set the current standard for 1204: 492: 473: 436: 395: 1106: 1002: 1001: 847: 694: 651: 467: 449:"Assessment of Competency and Sanity" 18:1960 United States Supreme Court case 848: 773:County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen 695: 13: 1145:New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson 333:to legislatures and lower courts. 36:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 1248: 1222:United States Supreme Court cases 590:402 (1960) is available from: 572: 1217:Adjudicative competence case law 421: 29: 276: 1232:1960 in United States case law 552: 517: 1: 388: 354:List of criminal competencies 247: 233:, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), was a 52:Milton Dusky v. United States 7: 967:Youngblood v. West Virginia 347: 263: 238:United States Supreme Court 10: 1253: 640:Oyez (oral argument audio) 428:This article incorporates 1161:Mesarosh v. United States 1115: 1102: 1010: 997: 859: 843: 703: 690: 215: 210: 144: 139: 133: 128: 113: 94: 89: 57: 47: 42: 28: 23: 1109:Prosecutorial misconduct 717:Holland v. United States 340:, and that various post- 1016:Bishop v. United States 903:United States v. Bagley 895:California v. Trombetta 873:Giglio v. United States 474:Grisso, Thomas (1988). 384:, 900 S.W.2d 702 (2005) 381:United States v. Binion 283:adjudicative competence 1024:Dusky v. United States 887:United States v. Agurs 725:Leary v. United States 580:Dusky v. United States 407:Dusky v. United States 230:Dusky v. United States 218: 191:William J. Brennan Jr. 43:Decided April 18, 1960 24:Dusky v. United States 1080:Sell v. United States 943:United States v. Ruiz 911:Arizona v. Youngblood 813:Sullivan v. Louisiana 757:Patterson v. New York 741:Cool v. United States 376:, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) 368:, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) 365:Faretta v. California 242:competency evaluation 1056:Medina v. California 781:Sandstrom v. Montana 324:, and competence to 195:Charles E. Whittaker 1237:Forensic psychology 935:Strickler v. Greene 927:Wood v. Bartholomew 789:Jackson v. Virginia 631:Library of Congress 1185:McDonough v. Smith 1088:Indiana v. Edwards 1072:Cooper v. Oklahoma 951:Illinois v. Fisher 821:Victor v. Nebraska 765:Taylor v. Kentucky 749:Mullaney v. Wilbur 373:Ford v. Wainwright 317:Indiana v. Edwards 258:writ of certiorari 171:William O. Douglas 155:Associate Justices 1199: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1177:Napue v. Illinois 1129:Hysler v. Florida 1121:Mooney v. Holohan 1098: 1097: 1048:Riggins v. Nevada 1040:Drope v. Missouri 1004:Mental competence 993: 992: 880:Moore v. Illinois 865:Brady v. Maryland 839: 838: 805:Cage v. Louisiana 797:Murray v. Carrier 485:978-0-943158-51-8 326:represent oneself 304:Subsequently, in 226: 225: 183:John M. Harlan II 167:Felix Frankfurter 76:80 S. Ct. 788; 4 1244: 1169:Alcorta v. Texas 1104: 1103: 1064:Godinez v. Moran 1032:Pate v. Robinson 999: 998: 919:Kyles v. Whitley 845: 844: 709:Leland v. Oregon 697:Reasonable doubt 692: 691: 672: 665: 658: 649: 648: 644: 638: 635: 629: 626: 620: 617: 611: 608: 602: 599: 593: 566: 556: 550: 549: 521: 515: 500:Godinez v. Moran 496: 490: 489: 471: 465: 464: 462: 460: 451:. Archived from 445: 434: 425: 424: 404: 307:Godinez v. Moran 221: 140:Court membership 33: 32: 21: 20: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1191: 1111: 1094: 1006: 989: 959:Banks v. Dretke 855: 835: 699: 686: 676: 642: 636: 633: 627: 624: 618: 615: 609: 606: 600: 597: 591: 575: 570: 569: 557: 553: 522: 518: 497: 493: 486: 472: 468: 458: 456: 455:on June 4, 2007 447: 446: 437: 422: 405: 396: 391: 350: 279: 266: 250: 193: 181: 169: 124:(8th Cir. 1961) 85: 38: 19: 12: 11: 5: 1250: 1240: 1239: 1234: 1229: 1224: 1219: 1214: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1192: 1190: 1189: 1181: 1173: 1165: 1157: 1153:White v. Ragen 1149: 1141: 1137:Pyle v. Kansas 1133: 1125: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1095: 1093: 1092: 1084: 1076: 1068: 1060: 1052: 1044: 1036: 1028: 1020: 1011: 1008: 1007: 995: 994: 991: 990: 988: 987: 979: 971: 963: 955: 947: 939: 931: 923: 915: 907: 899: 891: 883: 877: 869: 860: 857: 856: 841: 840: 837: 836: 834: 833: 829:Schlup v. Delo 825: 817: 809: 801: 793: 785: 777: 769: 761: 753: 745: 737: 729: 721: 713: 704: 701: 700: 688: 687: 678:United States 675: 674: 667: 660: 652: 646: 645: 613:Google Scholar 574: 573:External links 571: 568: 567: 551: 516: 491: 484: 466: 435: 393: 392: 390: 387: 386: 385: 377: 369: 361: 356: 349: 346: 302: 301: 298: 278: 275: 265: 262: 249: 246: 224: 223: 213: 212: 208: 207: 206: 205: 203:Potter Stewart 156: 153: 148: 142: 141: 137: 136: 131: 130: 126: 125: 115: 111: 110: 96: 92: 91: 87: 86: 75: 59: 55: 54: 49: 48:Full case name 45: 44: 40: 39: 34: 26: 25: 17: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1249: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1228: 1225: 1223: 1220: 1218: 1215: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1207: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1101: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1000: 996: 985: 984: 983:Smith v. Cain 980: 977: 976: 972: 969: 968: 964: 961: 960: 956: 953: 952: 948: 945: 944: 940: 937: 936: 932: 929: 928: 924: 921: 920: 916: 913: 912: 908: 905: 904: 900: 897: 896: 892: 889: 888: 884: 881: 878: 875: 874: 870: 867: 866: 862: 861: 858: 854: 852: 846: 842: 831: 830: 826: 823: 822: 818: 815: 814: 810: 807: 806: 802: 799: 798: 794: 791: 790: 786: 783: 782: 778: 775: 774: 770: 767: 766: 762: 759: 758: 754: 751: 750: 746: 743: 742: 738: 735: 734: 733:In re Winship 730: 727: 726: 722: 719: 718: 714: 711: 710: 706: 705: 702: 698: 693: 689: 684: 681: 673: 668: 666: 661: 659: 654: 653: 650: 641: 632: 623: 614: 605: 596: 595:CourtListener 589: 585: 581: 577: 576: 565: 561: 555: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 520: 513: 510: 506: 502: 501: 495: 487: 481: 477: 470: 454: 450: 444: 442: 440: 433: 431: 420: (1960). 419: 416: 412: 408: 403: 401: 399: 394: 383: 382: 378: 375: 374: 370: 367: 366: 362: 360: 357: 355: 352: 351: 345: 343: 339: 334: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 313: 309: 308: 299: 296: 295: 294: 292: 291:United States 288: 287:United States 284: 274: 272: 271:mental status 261: 259: 255: 254:schizophrenia 245: 243: 239: 236: 232: 231: 222: 220: 214: 209: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 160: 157: 154: 152: 149: 147:Chief Justice 146: 145: 143: 138: 132: 127: 123: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 101: 97: 93: 88: 83: 79: 73: 72: 67: 64: 60: 56: 53: 50: 46: 41: 37: 27: 22: 16: 1183: 1175: 1167: 1159: 1151: 1143: 1135: 1127: 1119: 1086: 1078: 1070: 1062: 1054: 1046: 1038: 1030: 1023: 1022: 1014: 981: 975:Cone v. Bell 973: 965: 957: 949: 941: 933: 925: 917: 909: 901: 893: 885: 879: 871: 863: 850: 827: 819: 811: 803: 795: 787: 779: 771: 763: 755: 747: 739: 731: 723: 715: 707: 579: 562:(1), 19-30. 559: 554: 532:(1): 14–17. 529: 525: 519: 514: (1993). 498: 494: 475: 469: 457:. Retrieved 453:the original 427: 406: 379: 371: 363: 341: 337: 335: 329: 321: 315: 311: 305: 303: 280: 277:Significance 267: 251: 229: 228: 227: 216: 211:Case opinion 198: 186: 179:Tom C. Clark 174: 162: 90:Case history 69: 51: 15: 683:due process 151:Earl Warren 1206:Categories 853:disclosure 459:October 5, 389:References 248:Background 219:Per curiam 159:Hugo Black 114:Subsequent 82:U.S. LEXIS 80:824; 1960 78:L. Ed. 2d 58:Citations 685:case law 680:criminal 578:Text of 546:20698084 538:27898867 348:See also 264:Decision 235:landmark 107:8th Cir. 604:Findlaw 322:Godinez 285:in the 129:Holding 1188:(2019) 1180:(1959) 1172:(1957) 1164:(1956) 1156:(1945) 1148:(1943) 1140:(1942) 1132:(1942) 1124:(1935) 1091:(2008) 1083:(2003) 1075:(1996) 1067:(1993) 1059:(1992) 1051:(1992) 1043:(1975) 1035:(1966) 1027:(1960) 1019:(1956) 986:(2012) 978:(2009) 970:(2006) 962:(2004) 954:(2004) 946:(2002) 938:(1999) 930:(1995) 922:(1995) 914:(1988) 906:(1985) 898:(1984) 890:(1976) 882:(1972) 876:(1972) 868:(1963) 832:(1995) 824:(1994) 816:(1993) 808:(1990) 800:(1986) 792:(1979) 784:(1979) 776:(1979) 768:(1978) 760:(1977) 752:(1975) 744:(1972) 736:(1970) 728:(1969) 720:(1954) 712:(1952) 643:  637:  634:  628:  625:  622:Justia 619:  616:  610:  607:  601:  598:  592:  544:  536:  503:, 482:  426:  409:, 330:Dusky' 201: 199:· 197:  189: 187:· 185:  177: 175:· 173:  165: 163:· 161:  851:Brady 586: 534:JSTOR 507: 413: 342:Dusky 338:Dusky 314:. In 312:Dusky 135:him." 109:1959) 95:Prior 588:U.S. 542:PMID 509:U.S. 480:ISBN 461:2007 415:U.S. 119:F.2d 117:295 100:F.2d 98:271 84:1307 71:more 63:U.S. 61:362 584:362 512:389 505:509 418:402 411:362 122:743 103:385 66:402 1208:: 582:, 540:. 530:33 528:. 438:^ 397:^ 671:e 664:t 657:v 548:. 488:. 463:. 432:. 105:( 74:) 68:(

Index

Supreme Court of the United States
U.S.
402
more
L. Ed. 2d
U.S. LEXIS
F.2d
385
8th Cir.
F.2d
743
Earl Warren
Hugo Black
Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker
Potter Stewart
landmark
United States Supreme Court
competency evaluation
schizophrenia
writ of certiorari
mental status
adjudicative competence
United States
United States
Godinez v. Moran

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.